Page 293 of 375

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:35 am
by Metamorphia
Gabriel wrote:There's a hilariously long review of TPTR in the Daily Telegraph which reads as a desperate luvvie attempt to justify not just liking the series, but calling it a 'masterpiece.'

It's got barely any comments on it and you'll have to search for it, because clearly no one's bothered to read it.

And that's the thing with the new show: the original, whether it provoked love or derision, provoked 'water cooler' discussion. This show has provoked discussion on interest group forums and that's it. Any friends I have who are fans laugh about it. The only discussions over beers we've had are about how mental the whole thing has been, how incompetent the whole thing is and how it was ever allowed to be broadcast in the state it was delivered. It's a lesson in not giving someone total creative control.

Most people simply don't care about the show – as a fan of the original and FWWM, my view of Lynch's work has been irrevocably tarnished. My brother, who was a bigger fan than me, ditched the show after part four.

Rather than being seen as some 'great experiment,' at best TPTR will be a minor footnote. As I say, I'm fascinated to read Mark Frost's book, because it might well be the best indication of what the original script was about and of the differences in viewpoints of the two creators.


How many modern shows do produce "water cooler" discussion though? Game of Thrones? The Walking Dead (maybe in its early seasons)? We live in a world that's so much more saturated now - and given how Twin Peak's time in the public limelight was so fleeting anyway, what made you think a continuation of it (and a continuation of Lynch and Frost's styles and interests 25 years on) would see it be anything but what it is now?

It will only be seen as a "minor footnote" in your angry view of all those who seem to like it. It's been received very well and will likely only grow in its critical appreciation, no matter how you try to demean those who hold opposing views to your own. Whether you reply or whether you're on another of your endless forum exile/return cycles I don't know.

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:54 am
by Rialto
Metamorphia wrote:
Gabriel wrote:There's a hilariously long review of TPTR in the Daily Telegraph which reads as a desperate luvvie attempt to justify not just liking the series, but calling it a 'masterpiece.'

It's got barely any comments on it and you'll have to search for it, because clearly no one's bothered to read it.

And that's the thing with the new show: the original, whether it provoked love or derision, provoked 'water cooler' discussion. This show has provoked discussion on interest group forums and that's it. Any friends I have who are fans laugh about it. The only discussions over beers we've had are about how mental the whole thing has been, how incompetent the whole thing is and how it was ever allowed to be broadcast in the state it was delivered. It's a lesson in not giving someone total creative control.

Most people simply don't care about the show – as a fan of the original and FWWM, my view of Lynch's work has been irrevocably tarnished. My brother, who was a bigger fan than me, ditched the show after part four.

Rather than being seen as some 'great experiment,' at best TPTR will be a minor footnote. As I say, I'm fascinated to read Mark Frost's book, because it might well be the best indication of what the original script was about and of the differences in viewpoints of the two creators.


How many modern shows do produce "water cooler" discussion though? Game of Thrones? The Walking Dead (maybe in its early seasons)? We live in a world that's so much more saturated now - and given how Twin Peak's time in the public limelight was so fleeting anyway, what made you think a continuation of it (and a continuation of Lynch and Frost's styles and interests 25 years on) would see it be anything but what it is now?

It will only be seen as a "minor footnote" in your angry view of all those who seem to like it. It's been received very well and will likely only grow in its critical appreciation, no matter how you try to demean those who hold opposing views to your own. Whether you reply or whether you're on another of your endless forum exile/return cycles I don't know.


You're on the wrong thread, Metamorphia. And those of us who've been here a while have heard every permutation on 'why you're wrong', believe me.

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:38 pm
by AgentEcho
Question for the profoundly disappointed: Would you have preferred an alternate scenario for the revival that was more akin to the current iteration of the Star Wars franchise, where a media company basically purchases the rights to the franchise and hires filmmakers who were fans of the original to continue the story forward (without input from the original creators), in which the primary creative goal is to please the fans?

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:50 pm
by Venus
AgentEcho wrote:Question for the profoundly disappointed: Would you have preferred an alternate scenario for the revival that was more akin to the current iteration of the Star Wars franchise, where a media company basically purchases the rights to the franchise and hires filmmakers who were fans of the original to continue the story forward (without input from the original creators), in which the primary creative goal is to please the fans?


For me, no. But what we got left me profoundly disappointed. Though you will have seen my mixed thoughts on the last two episodes.

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:57 pm
by Rialto
AgentEcho wrote:Question for the profoundly disappointed: Would you have preferred an alternate scenario for the revival that was more akin to the current iteration of the Star Wars franchise, where a media company basically purchases the rights to the franchise and hires filmmakers who were fans of the original to continue the story forward (without input from the original creators), in which the primary creative goal is to please the fans?


As we're not an amorphous blob or Borg mind, I'm only answering for myself, but in an ideal world for me, there would have been one of the following scenarios:

- Frost and Lynch do a sequel to TP that really, genuinely explores how the town and its characters had moved on (or failed to) after 25 years, without all the random characters and non-plots that led to nowhere. It is rich, nuanced, meditative and sad.

- As above, but maybe working with old and new collaborators to bring something different to the mix.

- they didn't make it at all.

I find it odd that you think everyone here probably wanted some cheesy non-stop fan service guff with Lynch and Frost cut out of the equation.

I just wanted something that would move me and challenge me in the way so much of Lynch's work has in the past. I didn't expect something so cold and disconnected.

If Lynch and Frost didn't want to make something that was actually a follow up in story and in tone to TP, my feeling is that they should have left well alone. I'd have been happier with nothing.

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 2:11 pm
by Poiuyt
AgentEcho wrote:Question for the profoundly disappointed: Would you have preferred an alternate scenario for the revival that was more akin to the current iteration of the Star Wars franchise, where a media company basically purchases the rights to the franchise and hires filmmakers who were fans of the original to continue the story forward (without input from the original creators), in which the primary creative goal is to please the fans?

No. I wanted exactly what I got with this new season. It was fan service for people who hate fan service.

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 2:13 pm
by AgentEcho
Rialto, you are pulling things out of a simple question that aren't there. It's a genuine question because most Star Wars fans seem perfectly happy with how things have unfolded with that franchise (maybe the recent spate of firings have caused alarm).

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 2:16 pm
by Venus
AgentEcho wrote:Rialto, you are pulling things out of a simple question that aren't there. It's a genuine question because most Star Wars fans seem perfectly happy with how things have unfolded with that franchise (maybe the recent spate of firings have caused alarm).


Maybe it's because the Force Awakens was much better than Attack of the Clones and the other two prequels that George Lucas butchered.

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 2:26 pm
by sylvia_north
AgentEcho wrote:Question for the profoundly disappointed: Would you have preferred an alternate scenario for the revival that was more akin to the current iteration of the Star Wars franchise, where a media company basically purchases the rights to the franchise and hires filmmakers who were fans of the original to continue the story forward (without input from the original creators), in which the primary creative goal is to please the fans?

I would have preferred L&F do a better job. The thing that happened in 1&2 was that thing, it's many years dead. I just wanted to be entertained or have it left alone. We'd have been just as hard on anyone else for delivering a lackluster product. I have no opinions on Star Wars, it doesn't exist to me.

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 2:39 pm
by Shloogorgh
In the case of the Star Wars franchise, Lucas had expended all his good will on the terrible prequels. I guess if Lynch had made an equally terrible entry in the form of Fire Walk With Me (which I consider to be a masterpiece), then I would be more open to the idea of wresting control from Lynch and Frost (say if in FWWM, Laura donned a green glove to punch BOB into oblivion).

But that's not the world we live in, and in this world I thought it was sacrilege to suggest someone else take the reigns. Even now, after being disappointed, I'm sure a Twin Peaks by committee would still be a terrible option.

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 2:41 pm
by Tailsun
I'm abroad on vacation and have been having a blast reading this thread in my down time. I have to say that I've been very impressed with the majority of posters being able to articulate their disappointment so well.

Apart from the occasional descent into mud slinging, this has been home to the most thought-provoking criticism of the new season that I've found so far. Certainly more interesting than endless theorizing (which, I will admit, is something I am guilty of myself).

So thank you all for that! And this is coming from someone that loved the vast majority of TR. I'll engage with the discussion more directly when I'm home again (and not trying to type on a phone).

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 2:42 pm
by referendum
this is the thing that has confused me about this group. there is a sensible conversation going on then suddenly someone mentions star wars. Is the point here that the first three star wars films were great then the re - run was a total pile of shit which only fans would have any interest in? Is this the comparison? Same with Alien. THe first ones were great and covenant was a giant steaming pile of bollocks.

Are you guys really trying to compare TP 3 to these relaunches of hollywood blockbusters?

ps, i have found this forum similarly problematic with mentions of the Shawshank redemption or eyes wide shut, both of which are so far from Lynch i can't begin to understand the comparison, apart from, in the context of this group, i hated both of them. But people in here actually say they liked them!

Re: RE: Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 2:45 pm
by Tailsun
referendum wrote:this is the thing that has confused me about this group. there is a sensible conversation going on then suddenly someone mentions star wars. Is the point here that the first three star wars films were great then the re - run was a total pile of shit which only fans would have any interest in? Is this the comparison? Same with Alien. THe first ones were great and covenant was a giant steaming pile of bollocks.

Are you guys really trying to compare TP 3 to these relaunches of hollywood blockbusters?
I think the meat of the question was if people would prefer the hypothetical scenario of different writers/directors at the helm if it meant a Return that was more faithful or connected to the source material (as it was advertised, to be fair).

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 2:46 pm
by Venus
referendum wrote:this is the thing that has confused me about this group. there is a sensible conversation going on then suddenly someone mentions star wars. Is the point here that the first three star wars films were great then the re - run was a total pile of shit which only fans would have any interest in? Is this the comparison? Same with Alien. THe first ones were great and covenant was a giant steaming pile of bollocks.

Are you guys really trying to compare TP 3 to these relaunches of hollywood blockbusters?


Lol no, someone brought it up so I commented :) Love your line 'there is a sensible conversation going on then suddenly someone mentions Star Wars'. V true :lol: Though I'm partial to a Star Wars diversion every now and then.

Tailsun - completely off topic but where are you vacationing? Just being nosey!

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 2:50 pm
by Agent Earle
AhmedKhalifa wrote:
I don't know about Frost's upcoming book. TSHOTP was a grand disappointment to me. It went on and on about Lewis and Clark, Crowley, and Owl-like men, and most of the book was actually about Douglas Milford's adventures investigating UFOs! Twin Peaks got the short end of the stick. I think Frost is guilty of the same thing Lynch is with TPTR: Each basically used the brand name of TP to pursue their own obsessions and interests and sell it under the name of the only mass marketable product either of them was ever involved with. Whether they like it or not, TP is what they will both be forever known for in the eyes of the public, and they both know that. Lynch piggybacked on the popularity and prestige of the original series to basically make an 18 hour love letter to himself and things that turn him on, packaging it all as a continuation of TP, when, in truth, it was hardly that at all. It is at best a spin-off, in which the original characters didn't behave like themselves, or like human beings, for that matter. And Frost used TPs popularity to write a book that waxed poetic about his interest in boring X-Files types shenanigans, with only less than half the book about the residents of TP and their stories. Case in point: How's Annie???
[/quote]

Kudos for this excellent post! I'd add as a proof of this lazy, irresponsible, devil-may-care attitude towards the original property a massive amount of retcons plaguing the book (and, to some extent, the series) - and bafflingly careless behavior when being called on it, the one that actually insists on spreading the mystery around these inconsistencies as an attempt to make some big deal out of it, as if there's some massive grand scheme on the part of the creator(s) behind it all that will explain all the stuff they got wrong, when we know now that didn't turn out to be the case.